Reactions to arguments for and against nuclear power are more or less the same as earlier. On the whole, these indicators - the survey includes several follow-up measurements concerning the pros and cons of nuclear power - indicate that the 'boom' of public opinion on nuclear power has continued. The general attitudes can also be seen, quite logically, in the ideas on which the attitudes are based. However, as a whole these indicators show an increase in scepticism rather than in trust when compared to the last survey.

Opinions about the environmental friendliness of nuclear power as a method of electricity generation are more approving than disapproving. Almost half (47%) of the respondents agree with this statement; about one in three (31%) disagree. The figures are practically equal to those of the two previous years, which were with a narrow margin the most favorable towards nuclear power during the entire follow-up period [Figure 9]. Discussion about the climate and negative attitudes toward fossil fuels have likely pushed the opinion to this direction. The shift is also reflected in the assessments pertaining to the mutual relationship of the energy forms in question. A majority (59%) of the respondents deem the use of nuclear power justifiable because it diminishes dependency on oil and other fossil fuels. This justification is not acceptable to a fifth of the respondents, however (20%, no figure).

There are slightly more reservations when it comes to the belief in the economic benefits of nuclear power than last year, at which time the assessments were in turn slightly more reserved than the previous year. Less than half (45%) of the respondents regard nuclear-generated electricity as affordable; one in five (24%) do not (no figure). The scepticism may be partly due to the general increase in the electricity price, a situation from which nuclear power indirectly suffers. Currently, the consumers likely do not deem electricity generated with any production method affordable (for more information on the attitudes towards the electricity market and the price of electricity, please see Chapter 8).

The most important favorable viewpoint continues to be the positive experiences of nuclear power in Finland. A clear majority of the respondents (62%) consider that Finland has gained good experiences from (Finnish) nuclear power. Only a small minority (11%) disagree. These opinions are close to the average level of the past few years. As a whole, the time series shows that recognition of Finnish nuclear power production has been strong at all times [Figure 10].

In the spectrum of arguments against nuclear power, the view that the use of nuclear power involves too many unknown hazards continues to be the key basis behind the negative attitudes. Although the distribution of answers still clearly emphasizes concern (45% of the respondents are concerned about unknown hazards, 34% are not), the long-term development of opinions indicates that unspecified concerns of this kind are gradually fading. The overall change from the results for the 1980's is considerable [Figure 11]. A similar but even clearer declining trend is evident in the assessments concerning cancer risks. The proportion of those who estimate that the risk of contracting cancer is great in the surroundings of nuclear power plants has gradually decreased from the majority (54% in 1986) to approximately a fourth (currently 26%, no figure).

Answers to questions concerning accidents at nuclear power plants continue to be relatively harsh, irrespective of whether the question is asked from the viewpoint of the probability of accidents or the potential consequences of an accident. A third (34%) of the respondents consider a nuclear power plant accident resulting in major damage so unlikely that there is no reason to be concerned. Approximately half of the respondents (49%) disagree. There are now slightly more respondents who deem the accident risk real than the year before but their share is still less than the average during the follow-up period [Figure 12].